Human rights are natural rights, which are universal and inviolable. (PT ¶ 9)

In part I of the encyclical, Pope John lists a set of those rights in considerable detail. They include:

Life

A worthy standard of living

Respect for the person

Education and training

Freedom of religion

Although Pope John treats freedom of religion as a basic Christian precept, many would argue that his papacy marks a major shift at least in emphasis. In particular, some claim that” against centuries of Catholic thought and practice asserting the primacy of truth over conscience in religious matters, John simply asserted, without laying out detailed arguments, that civil authorities have an obligation to protect the freedom of their citizens to worship and practice religion as they see fit in their own conscientious belief.”

For an interesting analysis of these questions, written shortly after Pacem in Terris, see John Courtney Murray’s 1963 essay On Religious Liberty.

Family

To pursue priestly vocations

Safe and moral working conditions

The right to unionize

The right to emigrate and immigrate

The right to participate in public affairs

Protection of one’s rights from arbitrary oppression

Notice that the Pope’s outline of basic human rights includes both negative rights and positive rights. (I have elsewhere expressed a certain skepticism about positive rights, but that discussion is for another time.)

Unlike many accounts of human rights, Pope John explicitly links those rights to corresponding duties:

Thus, for example, the right to live involves the duty to preserve one's life; the right to a decent standard of living, the duty to live in a becoming fashion; the right to be free to seek out the truth, the duty to devote oneself to an ever deeper and wider search for it. (PT ¶ 29)

Human dignity thus encompasses both the right to “act freely” and the duty to do so “responsibly.” (PT ¶ 34)

Pope John concludes the first part of the encyclical with a number of observations about the state of the world as it then was:

“… a progressive improvement in the economic and social condition of working men. They began by claiming their rights principally in the economic and social spheres, and then proceeded to lay claim to their political rights as well. Finally, they have turned their attention to acquiring the more cultural benefits of society.” (PT ¶ 40)

“… the part that women are now playing in political life is everywhere evident. ... Women are gaining an increasing awareness of their natural dignity. Far from being content with a purely passive role or allowing themselves to be regarded as a kind of instrument, they are demanding both in domestic and in public life the rights and duties which belong to them as human persons.” (PT ¶ 41)

“Since all peoples have either attained political independence or are on the way to attaining it, soon no nation will rule over another and none will be subject to an alien power.” (PT ¶ 42) This seems to clearly be an affirmative reference to the process of decolonization that was underway at that time.

A growing acceptance of human equality and, in particular, disapproval of racial discrimination.

The Individual and the State

Part II of Pacem in Terris accepts the legitimacy of the state but insists that the state derives its authority from God. (PT ¶ 45)

We must … reject the view that the will of the individual or the group is the primary and only source of a citizen's rights and duties, and of the binding force of political constitutions and the government's authority. (PT ¶ 78)

Which raises the questions: What happens when a state embraces secularism as a key ordering principle? What happens when the majority of citizens reject religion and embrace secularism?

As with Mater et Magistra, Pacem in Terris embraces the “both/and” of subsidiarity and solidarity. Individuals and “intermediate groups” are rightfully free but they also have a duty to contribute to the common welfare. (PT ¶ 53) We see this again in Part IV of the encyclical, which deals with international relations, where Pope John wrote:

The same principle of subsidiarity which governs the relations between public authorities and individuals, families and intermediate societies in a single State, must also apply to the relations between the public authority of the world community and the public authorities of each political community. (PT ¶ 140)

For those of us who are lawyers, the three paragraphs (¶¶ 70-72) dealing with the social role of the law are especially pertinent (if a tad cryptic):

There can be no doubt that a State juridical system which conforms to the principles of justice and rightness, and corresponds to the degree of civic maturity evinced by the State in question, is highly conducive to the attainment of the common good.

And yet social life is so complex, varied and active in this modern age, that even a juridical system which has been established with great prudence and foresight often seems inadequate to the need.

Moreover, the relations of citizens with each other, of citizens and intermediate groups with public authorities, and the relations between public authorities of the same State, are sometimes seen to be of so ambiguous and explosive a nature, that they are not susceptible of being regulated by any hard and fast system of laws.

In such cases, if the authorities want to preserve the State's juridical system intact—in itself and in its application to specific cases—and if they want to minister to the principal needs of society, adapt the laws to the conditions of modern life and seek solutions to new problems, then it is essential that they have a clear idea of the nature and limits of their own legitimate spheres of action. Their calmness, integrity, clear sightedness and perseverance must be such that they will recognize at once what is needed in a given situation, and act with promptness and efficiency.

Relations Between States

Part III turns to inter-state relations. At the outset, there is a clear rejection of the ideologies that underlay colonialism: “Truth calls for the elimination of every trace of racial discrimination, and the consequent recognition of the inviolable principle that all States are by nature equal in dignity. Each of them accordingly has the right to exist, to develop, and to possess the necessary means and accept a primary responsibility for its own development.” (PT ¶ 86) The following paragraphs tick off in detail why the various justifications invoked by colonialists have no grounding in morality or natural law.

The then-recent experience of World War II is obvious in several portions of this section, including:

Pope John’s insistence that international disputes “be settled in a truly human way, not by armed force nor by deceit or trickery.” (PT ¶ 93)

His insistence that “any attempt to check the vitality and growth of these ethnic minorities is a flagrant violation of justice; the more so if such perverse efforts are aimed at their very extinction,” which is a clear reference to the Holocaust and other genocidal programs during the war. (PT ¶ 95)

Relatedly, there is what I take to be a reference to (among other things) Zionism and the formation of the state of Israel, as the Pope mentions a “political trend (which since the nineteenth century has become widespread throughout the world and has gained in strength) as a result of which men of similar ethnic background are anxious for political autonomy and unification into a single nation.” (PT ¶ 94)

There is also a “cautionary note” in which Pope John states that some “minority groups, in reaction, perhaps, to the enforced hardships of their present situation, or to historical circumstances, frequently tend to magnify unduly characteristics proper to their own people.” (PT ¶ 97)

This is a somewhat odd passage. It seems unlikely to be directed specifically at Jews, as Pope John did so much to reconcile Catholics and Jews.

In context, the passage seems to be cautioning against ethnocentrism whether it is practiced by majority or minority groups within a state. We are all part of the same human family.

Finally, Pope John takes note of the fundamental change effected by the development and use of nuclear weapons. (PT ¶¶ 126-29) Nuclear weapons should be banned, as should testing of those weapons. (PT ¶¶ 111-12) The potential for catastrophic destruction called into question the whole concept of just war.

The World Community

The fourth part of Pacem in Terrisdeals with the then-new United Nations and, more broadly, the world community. Pope John argues that no single nation can provide the common good universally, instead it must be joint effort of the entire world community. (PT ¶¶ 132-35)

Pastoral Exhortations

The closing part of Pacem in Terrisconsists of series of exhortations directed mainly at the laity. The Pope encourages participation in public life. (PT ¶ 146) In passing, one wonders what Pope John would have made of The Benedict Option?